> > Yeah yea but the latencies are minimal making the NUMA logic too
> > expensive for most loads ... If you put a NUMA kernel onto those then
> > performance drops (I think someone measures 15-30%?)
>
> Small socket count systems are going to increasingly be NUMA in future.
> If CONFIG_NUMA hurts performance by that much on those systems, then the
> kernel is broken IMO.
Not sure where that number came from.
In my tests some time ago NUMA overhead on SMP was minimal.
This was admittedly with old 2.4 kernels. There have been some doubts about
some of the newer NUMA features added; in particular about NUMA slab;
don't think there was much trouble with anything else -- in fact the trouble
was that it apparently sometimes made moderate NUMA factor NUMA systems
slower too. But I assume SLUB will address this anyways.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
